APIbase

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data structure (rank, points, wins, draws, losses, goals) which compensates partially for the missing output schema. However, it lacks disclosure on rate limits, caching behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid league IDs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently packed with two distinct information units: the output data fields and the league ID mapping. Every clause serves a purpose. Minor deduction for the dense parenthetical source citation at the end which slightly disrupts readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool without output schema or annotations, the description is adequately complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing the returned fields and provides sufficient parameter guidance through the enumerated league examples.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema description coverage (which establishes a baseline of 3), the description adds value by enumerating additional valid league ID examples (Bundesliga 78, Ligue 1 61) not present in the schema's parameter description, providing users with a more complete set of common inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'League table/standings' and specifies the exact data fields returned (rank, points, wins, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'sports.football.fixtures' (matches) and 'sports.football.leagues' (metadata) by emphasizing the standings data structure, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'Retrieve'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description provides helpful league ID examples (Premier League 39, La Liga 140, etc.), it offers no explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like 'sports.football.fixtures' or 'sports.football.leagues'. There are no 'when-not' conditions or prerequisites mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.